Hoping Is Not Creating

“Grunga had taken our thalpot and we, the Narimen, were after it—and him.”

I suppose that’s all there is to creating conflict. Or at least to defining the scope of the conflict. If I wanted actual conflict and not just its scope I’d need to describe the value of the thalpot to both the Narimen and Grunga. I’d need to outline Grunga’s abilities to capture the thing and the skills he possessed to get it away first and maintain control of it second. His Invisibility Boots and his Fist of Doom ought to do the trick. Somewhere in there it might make sense to learn how the Narimen planned to get the thalpot back and with what or who’s help.

Then of course they fail, regroup, plan again, and re-fail. Third times a charm after that of course, but I’d still need to have the reader thinking the return of the thalpot to the Narimen was in jeopardy right up to the moment it wasn’t…in jeopardy.

So there you go. There I go. A rescue plot or a quest plot or whatever.

As I think back on nearly everything I’ve written here on 1000 Days I realize that I’ve been creating mystery not conflict. I’ve set a scene where I want the reader to wonder what or why the character is doing what they are doing. Of course most of these mysteries could become conflicts, but that wasn’t where I was headed with them. Presenting conflict was my hope, but not my intent. Obviously hoping conflict would come along results in very little conflict coming along.

Shit.

Shit or get off the pot.

No need to worry about the Narimen or the return of their thalpot. This post was a Mad Libs style hypothetical.